Clark v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2025] QLC 32

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Clark v Sunshine Coast Regional Council [2025] QLC 32 PARTIES: Gregory Scott Clark (applicant) v Sunshine Coast Regional Council (respondent) FILE NO: AQL430-24 PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation under the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 DELIVERED ON: 17 December 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARD ON: 31 October 2025 and 3 November 2025 Submissions received 10 November 2025 and 21 November 2025 HEARD AT: Brisbane MEMBER: JR McNamara ORDERS: 1. Compensation for the taking of the subject Land is determined in the sum of Five Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,800,000), less advances paid. 2. Compensation for disturbance costs is determined in the sum of Seventy-Three Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety-Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($73,192.50). 3. The stamp duty payable is to be determined based on the award of compensation for the taking of the subject Land. 4. The parties will be heard in relation to any application for costs. A request for such a hearing must be made on or before 28 January 2026. CATCHWORDS: REAL PROPERTY – COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND – COMPENSATION – ASSESSMENT – where the respondent issued the applicant a notice of intention to resume for the purpose of recreation grounds – where the applicant applied to the Court to determine their compensation entitlement under the Acquisition of Land Act -- 1 of 35 -- 2 1967 – where the highest and best use of the subject Land is agreed as an improved lifestyle property – where the parties agreed that the primary methodology for valuing the subject Land is the direct comparison approach – where the applicant also used the summation method and a special value in reverse approach – where there were twelve identified comparable sales considered by the valuers – where the valuers disagreed as to the influence location and amenity had on value – where the Court must determine compensation entitlement – whether the applicant is entitled to compensation for disturbance costs Acquisition of Land Act 1967 s 7, s 12(5), s 20(2), s 20(5), s 26A(2), s 28(1) Body Corporate for Ocean Plaza Apartments CTS 5879 v Valuer-General; Body Corporate for Points North CTS 4774 v Valuer-General (No 2) [2025] QLC 17, cited BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General (2019) 40 QLCR 232; [2019] QLAC 4, cited Heavey Lex No 64 Pty Ltd & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport (2001) 22 QLCR 177; [2001] QLAC 4, cited Inglis & Ors v State of Queensland (No 2); State of Queensland v Inglis & Ors (2015) 36 QLCR 255; [2015] QLAC 3, cited Robke & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads; Robke & Anor v Mackay Sugar Ltd [2025] QLC 3, cited APPEARANCES: DR Gore KC, with WDJ Macintosh (instructed by HWL Ebsworth Lawyers) for the applicant JM Horton KC, with W Isdale (instructed by Clayton Utz) for the respondent [1] The Land Court has power to hear and determine claims for compensation on the taking of land by a constructing authority. [2] On 8 December 2023 (the acquisition date) the Sunshine Coast Regional Council (SCRC) became the registered owner of 348 Yandina Bli Bli Road, Maroochy River (the subject Land), for which compensation is sought by the applicant, Mr Clark. [3] The Court must decide the value of the subject Land as at the acquisition date in order to determine compensation pursuant to section 20(2) of the Acquisition of Land Act 1967 (ALA). [4] The applicant says the value of the subject Land taken, as at 8 December 2023, was $11,250,000. The SCRC says the value of the subject Land on that date was -- 2 of 35 -- 3 $5,800,000. The applicant is also entitled to costs reasonably attributable to disturbance, and interest. [5] The highest and best use of the subject Land is agreed to be as an improved lifestyle property.1 [6] Improvements to the subject Land as listed in the Rider Levett Bucknall (RLB) report2 of Quantity Surveyor, Nicholas Duncan, are agreed.3 [7] It was also agreed that the primary valuation methodology to be adopted is the direct comparison approach.4 [8] As noted by Member Loos of this court in Body Corporate for Ocean Plaza Apartments CTS 5879 v Valuer-General; Body Corporate for Points North CTS 4774 v Valuer-General (No 2) [2025] QLC 17 at [13], the Land Appeal Court has articulated the principles involved with considering comparable sales.5 [9] The applicant applies the direct comparison method, but also uses the summation method as a “check method” and submits that the Court would be assisted “perhaps to a lesser extent” by the “special value in reverse” approach described in the applicant’s 11 April 2025 Amended Statement of Facts and Issues.6 [10] The respondent uses only the direct comparison method, says the summation method is fraught with danger, and says the special value in reverse approach is not established in law. [11] The evidence included the RLB report, which listed the improvements to the subject Land and assessed the depreciated value of those improvements, and a Joint Expert Report (JER) of valuers Wayne Rex, instructed by the solicitor for the applicant, and Chris Kamitsis, instructed by the solicitor for the respondent. Mr Duncan was not called to give evidence. Mr Rex and Mr Kamitsis gave evidence in a concurrent session at the hearing. 1 Ex 1, document 6, List of Matters Not in Dispute, para 2(a). 2 Ex 1, document 12, Statement of Nicholas Luke Duncan, Quantity Surveyor. 3 Ex 1, document 6, List of Matters Not in Dispute, para 2(b). 4 Ibid para 2(c). 5 BWP Management Limited v Valuer-General (2019) 40 QLCR 232 [19]-[25]; [2019] QLAC 4. 6 Ex 1, document 4, Applicant’s Amended Statement of Facts and Issues, para 13(c). -- 3 of 35 -- 4 [12] The Sales Summary Table reproduced below7 identifies the pool of twelve properties (the Sales) listed in ascending order of sale price, considered by the valuers in formulating their opinions. A column has been added to the table which records Mr Rex’s vacant and/or “excluding structures” analysed rate per ha (rounded). In these reasons the Sales will be referred to by the number they are assigned in the table. The Sales Summary Map below8 shows the location of the Sales and the location of the subject Land. 7 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 36. 8 Ibid page 37. -- 4 of 35 -- 5 No. Address Sale Date Sale Price Site Area Rex’s analysed rate vacant or excluding structures (rounded) 1. 935 Bald Knob Road, Bald Knob 07/12/2023 $4,000,000 22.58ha 2. 23 Bidners Road, Lake Macdonald 06/04/2023 $5,000,000 44.20ha $113K/ha 3. 57 Mountain View Road, Bald Knob 24/10/2023 $5,250,000 14.48ha 4. 199 Yandina Bli Bli Road, Maroochy River 24/09/2021 $5,650,000 68.72ha $78.5K/ha 5. 135 Cooroy Mountain Road, Lake Macdonald 04/08/2023 $6,150,000 31.39ha $135.4K/ha* 6. 758 Maroochydore Road, Forest Glen 5/09/2023 $7,239,000 103.51ha $70K/ha 7. 176 North Maleny Road, North Maleny 26/11/2023 $7,735,000 46.48ha $161K/ha 8. 342 North Maleny Road, North Maleny 03/11/2023 $8,580,000 38.87ha $125K/ha* 9. 69-71 Dales Road, Chevallum 21/07/2023 $9,500,000 8.13ha $307.5K/ha* 10. 491 Cooroy Mountain Road, Cooroy Mountain Feb 2021 $9,500,000 44.02ha $150K/ha* 11. 116 Hayward Road, Lake Macdonald 14/11/2023 $10,200,000 19.08ha $350K/ha* 12. 20 Corks Pocket Road, Reesville 30/07/2021 $13,500,000 74.64ha $106K/ha* * Analysed rate, excluding structures -- 5 of 35 -- 6 -- 6 of 35 -- 7 [13] The Sales fall into broadly three Sunshine Coast hinterland regions. They are: four Sales in the Noosa hinterland, that is the Lake Macdonald/Cooroy region; three in the central Yandina/Maroochy River and south to Palmwoods region; and five in the Maleny/Bald Knob southern region. Nine (9) of the Sales were transacted in 2023, and Sales 4, 10 and 12 in 2021. [14] Ahead of the hearing, the Court and counsel for the parties conducted a site inspection of the subject Land, and 9 of the 12 Sales. Sales 6, 9 and 12 were not visited for logistical reasons. Apart from the subject Land, the inspections consisted of observations that could be made from the property gate or boundary. The Court was able to drive onto and walk over the subject Land and inspect the improvements, noting that two years has passed since the acquisition date, and that the applicant no longer resides on nor maintains the subject Land. [15] It was agreed that the subject Land is a prestige property and that the highest and best use of the subject Land is “an improved rural lifestyle property”.9 A fundamental difference of opinion arises between the valuers regarding the influence location and amenity (of the subject Land and the Sales) has on value in this case. Mr Rex considers that proximity to urban amenities including access to the Bruce Highway, the airport, schools, beaches and healthcare was the most critical element to achieve recognition as a “premium rural lifestyle property”. Mr Kamitsis accepts the amenity Maroochy River enjoys, but considers it (Maroochy River) a lower order locality from a prestige property market perspective,10 relative to the Maleny/Montville area. [16] Apart from issues such as size (area), topography and the market at the time of sale, other issues influencing the valuers’ analysis of the Sales included: the impact of significant telecommunication infrastructure (Sale 1), high voltage electrical lines (Sale 5), and water and/or powerline easements (Sales 7 and 8); the “view corridor” quality (superior versus inferior), access (gravel road versus sealed road access), elevation (climb or decent); and (for example, Sales 9 and 12) the quality of the homes and facilities (award winning, architectural etc.). 9 Ibid page 34. 10 Ibid page 55. -- 7 of 35 -- 8 The subject Land [17] The subject Land:11 (a) comprised an area of 43.74 ha and was predominantly rectangular in shape; (b) fronted and obtained access to and from Yandina Bli Bli Road; (c) had a topography which rises from approximately 5 m AHD at the northern entrance to approximately 85 m AHD in the south-western corner of the subject Land; (d) was improved by: (i) Automated gate; (ii) Security cameras and system; (iii) Lighting of the property; (iv) Driveway; (v) Culverts; (vi) Cleared tracks; (vii) Powerline; (viii) Dams including recreational facilities and spillway structures; (ix) Irrigation system; (x) Orchard; (xi) Shed; (xii) Water tanks; and (xiii) A Dwelling house including a pool, carport and shed. (e) was otherwise largely vegetated with the exception of some vacant land surrounding the single dwelling and shed; and (f) was included in the Rural Zone under the Sunshine Coast Planning Scheme 2014. 11 Ex 1, document 4, Applicant’s Amended Statement of Facts and Issues, para 2(a)-(f); Ex 1, document 6, List of Matters Not in Dispute, para 2. -- 8 of 35 -- 9 [18] The subject Land is affected by the following council overlays:12 (a) Land Subject to Acid Sulfate Soils (land above 5 m AHD and below 20 m AHD); (b) Land Subject to Airport Environmental Overlays (Runway Separation Distance and Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS)); (c) Biodiversity, Waterways and Wetlands (Stream Orders 1-2 and 3-4, Riparian Protection Area, Wetlands, Native Vegetation Area); (d) Land Subject to Bushfire Hazard (Medium and High Bushfire Hazard Area and Buffer); (e) Flooding and Inundation Area, Height of Buildings and Structures Overlay (8.5 m); (f) Land Subject to Landslide Hazard and Steep Land (Moderate and High Hazard Area, and Slope 15-20% and Slope 20-25%); (g) Land Subject to Regional Infrastructure (Major Road Corridor and Buffer); and (h) Land Subject to Scenic Amenity (Scenic Route). The Resumption [19] On 21 March 2023, the respondent issued the applicant with a Notice of Intention to Resume the Land (NIR), pursuant to section 7 of the ALA, for the purpose of recreation grounds, namely the Sunshine Coast Council Nature Based Recreation Precinct Development. On 8 December 2023, the respondent became the registered owner of the subject Land.13 [20] Abutting the subject Land is the 650 ha Parklands Conservation Park, a popular public bushwalking and mountain bike facility also known as the Sunshine Coast Mountain Bike Centre. Following the resumption, the Conservation Park together with the resumed subject Land was nominated as the venue for the 2032 Olympic Cycling Mountain Bike events. 12 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, pages 28-9, para 8.2. 13 Ex 1, document 4, Applicant’s Amended Statement of Facts and Issues, paras 3-7; Ex 1, document 6, List of Matters Not in Dispute, para 2. -- 9 of 35 -- 10 The Claim [21] It is the applicant’s case that it is entitled to compensation in the sum of $11,250,000, less advances paid, together with disturbance costs and interest on the amount of compensation awarded pursuant to section 28(1) of the ALA. [22] On 2 July 2024, the valuer for the respondent, Mr Kamitsis determined the market value of the subject Land to be $6,000,000. He said that during conclave as the valuers prepared the JER he gained a better understanding of flood the risk, and amended his valuation to $5,800,000.14 [23] Accordingly, the respondent says the Court should determine compensation of $5,800,000, together with disturbance costs and interest. [24] The applicant and respondent were unable to agree the disturbance costs. They each filed further written submissions on 10 November 2025. The respondent filed amended written submissions as to disturbance items on 21 November 2025. [25] The respondent paid the applicant advances on compensation on 19 July 2024 in the sum of $5,441,114.51, and on or about 10 September 2024 in the sum of $325,525 for a total of $5,766,639.51. In addition, the respondent at paragraph [9] of its Statement of Facts and Issues in Response15 describes the amount of $750,000 remitted to the Australian Tax Office on 31 July 2024, and says at [11] that the total amount advanced therefore is $6,516,639.51. The applicant in its Statement of Facts and Issues in Reply agreed to the matters set out in those paragraphs.16 I accept that that amount must be treated in accordance with section 26A(2) of the ALA. The Direct Comparison Method [26] The 12 Sales completed in 2021 and 2023 which were considered by the valuers include vacant rural lifestyle and improved lifestyle holdings. There were no “prestige property” sales in Maroochy River in the period considered. [27] Sales 2, 4 (but for some machinery sheds), 6 and 7 (farmhouse and sheds removed post-sale) were effectively “vacant”. 14 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 51, paras 12.24-12.26. 15 Ex 1, document 2, Respondent’s Statement of Facts and Issues in Response. 16 Ex 1, document 3, Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Issues in Reply, para 3. -- 10 of 35 -- 11 [28] Of the 12 Sales, Mr Rex utilised 9 Sales (including the 4 “vacant” Sales). Mr Kamitsis gave consideration to the vacant Sales but arrived at his valuation assessment by giving more weight to improved Sales. In particular, by reference to Sales 1 and 3, he considered the market value of the subject Land to be above $5,250,000 but below $6,150,000 (Sale 5). He considered Sales 6 to 12 to be either not relevant (because it is too difficult to make a meaningful direct comparison), or vastly superior.17 [29] Mr Rex did not rely on Sale 1, 3 and 5. He considered Sale 8 and Sale 11, although lacking the expansive coastal views and proximity to services the subject Land enjoys, to be the best guide.18 The Sales Sales 1, 3 and 5 [30] These 3 Sales occurred within (approximately) 4 months of the resumption. [31] The respondent says that on the basis of comparable sales, particularly Sale 1, 3 and 5, the Court should find that the value of the subject Land as at 8 December 2023 was $5,800,000. [32] In the JER, Mr Rex considered the rural amenity, community facilities, and community access of Sale 1 and 3 (both at Bald Knob) to be inferior to the subject Land. He considered the rural amenity, community facilities and community access of Sale 5 (at Lake Macdonald) to be comparable to the subject Land. [33] In the JER, Mr Rex considered the structural improvements of Sale 1, 3 and 5 to all be inferior to the subject Land. [34] Sale 1 is a 22.58 ha hilltop property at Bald Knob which sold for $4,000,000 in December 2023. The residence, accessed via a steep driveway, sits on an elevated plateau of 4 ha. Both valuers considered Sale 1 to be overall inferior to the subject Land. [35] Mr Kamitsis considered Sale 1 to have the best view of all 12 comparable sales. Mr Rex believed the marketing photographs misrepresented the view corridor. The steep ascending driveway passes two 25 m high transmission towers and outbuildings on 17 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 50, para 12.22. 18 Ibid page 43, para 11.21. -- 11 of 35 -- 12 the property. Mr Rex considered that the impact of “such serious Telstra infrastructure” close to the home site made the Sale “hard to gauge”.19 [36] Mr Kamitsis accepted that the infrastructure was a detriment and a detraction reflected in the price paid,20 although he believed the house was positioned to take in the best views. He agreed that but for the towers and infrastructure the sale price would have been greater, but said it was “hard to tell”. [37] Sale 3, a 14.48 ha property also at Bald Knob sold in October 2023 for $5,250,000. The property is on the border of Maleny and Bald Knob. It is approximately 900 m from the Mary Cairncross Park visitor centre. In contrast to Sale 1, access to the property from Mountain View Road is a very steep descent. The site enjoys Glass House Mountains views. Mr Kamitsis considered Sale 3 to be “significantly better” than Sale 1, despite his opinion that Sale 1 had better (in fact the best) views. [38] In comparing Sale 3 with the subject Land, Mr Kamitsis formed the view that Sale 3 was an inferior sale.21 Mr Rex considered Sale 3 vastly inferior to the subject Land. [39] Mr Kamitsis considered Sale 3 to provide a “helpful comparison”. It has good Glass House Mountains views, but views which were not as good as the subject Land. Sale 3 is considerably smaller in area (than the subject Land), but the residence on Sale 3 somewhat larger. There are some native vegetation, stream order, and bushfire overlays. Mr Rex thought the bushfire risk at Sale 3 to be greater than the subject Land, despite the subject Land abutting the Parklands Conservation Park. [40] Mr Kamitsis thought that the subject Land should be “above”, that is valued higher than, the $5,250,000 paid for Sale 3, but not a great deal above … “because this [Sale 3] is located in that Maleny-Mapleton hinterland”.22 [41] Mr Rex agreed that “Maleny does attract higher prices for its location”,23 although he later said in evidence “I think the Maleny location’s inferior …”.24 [42] These statements might be reconciled to mean that in Mr Rex’s opinion, for what he considers to be an inferior location, Maleny still commands high prices. 19 T 1-14, lines 45 to 47; T 1-15, line 1. 20 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 55. 21 T 1-43, lines 17 to 20. 22 Ibid. 23 T 1-45, line 21. 24 T 1-108, line 47. -- 12 of 35 -- 13 [43] Sale 5, a 31.39 ha property at Lake Macdonald and close to Cooroy, sold in August 2023 for $6,150,000. Mr Rex does not rely on this Sale. Mr Kamitsis thought it helpful. He considered it a superior location to the subject Land being within the Noosa Local Government Area (LGA), and flood free. The residence is “more modern”. Sale 5 is affected by a powerline easement visible from 50% of the property, although not from the residence, with less usable area than the subject Land. The powerline easement is 332.73 m from the residence. [44] When asked about differences between Sale 5 and the subject Land, Mr Rex pointed to the presence of the powerline easement and an underground Seqwater pipeline easement. He considered the residence more modern but the improvements on Sale 5 overall inferior to the subject Land. [45] Mr Kamitsis values the subject Land above both Sales 1 and 3, but below Sale 5. Mr Rex does not rely on Sale 5 but considered Sale 5 to have comparable rural amenity, and a comparable location in relation to community facilities, but is further from the beaches and airport than the subject Land. [46] These three Sales were completed near the time of the resumption and are highly relevant. For the reasons expressed by both valuers I accept that Sale 1 and Sale 3 are both inferior to the subject Land. I do not consider Sale 1 to be a particularly useful “comparable sale”. I accept that Sale 3 is significantly better than Sale 1, and that the subject Land is somewhat superior to Sale 3. [47] In the application of the direct comparison method, Sale 5 is, of these Sales, the most instructive. In my view, whether the correct valuation of the subject Land is higher or lower than Sale 5 is determined by the influence location has on value. This is discussed shortly. Sales 4, 6, 9 and 12 [48] The valuers held similar views in relation to Sales 4, 6, 9 and 12. [49] Sale 4, a 2021 sale located in close proximity to the subject Land fronts the Maroochy River; was subject to flooding; was not improved; was not elevated; was effectively a grazing property; and was roughly one third larger in area. Mr Rex considered Sale 4 as inferior to the subject Land and that it sold in an inferior market. Mr Kamitsis thought the primary driver of value for this Sale was its 400 metres of river frontage. He did not consider Sale 4 a comparable sale. -- 13 of 35 -- 14 [50] Sale 6, at Forest Glen, a 2023 sale, at 103.51 ha is considerably larger in area; has a maximum elevation of 6 m AHD; is subject to flooding and inundation during heavy rain events; is predominately clear of vegetation; and provides a grazing opportunity, but not privacy for a quality rural lifestyle homesite. Mr Rex considered it far inferior to the subject Land while Mr Kamitsis considered it “not comparable”. [51] Sale 9, at Chevallum, a July 2023 sale, at 8.13 ha is much smaller in area but located in a “rural residential and larger rural lifestyles holdings” area. It sold for $9,500,000. Both valuers agreed that the improvements are far superior. Mr Kamitsis considered that the primary driver of value for this property was the extensive residence, approximately three times the size of the dwelling on the subject Land, and a quality 2018 build. Neither valuer placed any special reliance on Sale 9.25 [52] Sale 12, a July 2021 sale at Reesville 7.2 km west of the Maleny Town Centre, at 74.64 ha is significantly larger than the subject Land with a maximum elevation of 400 m AHD and north facing views of Witta and the Curramore Ranges. The residence, the Master Builders Queensland Home of the Year, is approximately 1500 m2; there is a tennis court with spectator seating, a dressage arena, and multiple pasture improved paddocks, stockyards, sheds, landscaped gardens etc. Mr Rex overall considered the property to be superior. Mr Kamitsis considered it a vastly superior property which sold for $13,500,000 in an inferior (2021) market. [53] Sale 9 and 12 both have residences which are of more recent construction than the residence on the subject Land. The photographs and the descriptions in the JER would confirm they are considerably superior to the residence on the subject Land. For both Sales, the primary drivers of value are the residences and entertainment areas which are far superior to that of the subject Land. [54] Sales 4 and 6 are either not directly comparable or far inferior; and Sales 9 and 12 are not directly comparable or far superior to the subject Land. [55] These Sales provided little assistance to the valuers and little to no assistance to the Court.26 25 T 1-74, lines 23 to 24. 26 Ex 14, Applicant’s Closing Submissions, para 43. -- 14 of 35 -- 15 Sales 2 and 7 – “vacant” and/or minimally improved [56] Sale 2 is a similar size land parcel to the subject Land. It was a “vacant sale” at Lake Macdonald east of Cooroy. It sold in April 2023 for $5,000,000. Access is via a gravel private road. Sale 2 enjoys a superior topography to the subject Land with local hinterland views, is flood free, and while similar in size it has twice the amount of usable land. [57] Neither party places reliance on Sale 2 in its application of the direct comparison method. [58] In the JER, Mr Rex said of Sale 2: “The sale affords one of the few sales of a comparable scale of rural land holding in the wider Sunshine Coast hinterland region that demonstrates a vacant land value only.”27 [59] Mr Rex considered Sale 2 inferior overall to the subject Land on a vacant land basis. He says it has inferior rural amenity and view corridor; he said, “it’s a different type of rural lifestyle property …”; and that certain lifestyle purchasers favoured “nature” and more vegetated land. I do not understand the comment to convey an opinion about value (higher or lower). [60] It was put to Mr Kamitsis that “one of the attractions” of the subject Land was its adjacency to the Parklands Conservation Park – which is significantly vegetated. Mr Kamitsis agreed that there would be buyers that would be attracted to the subject Land for that reason. However, he said that “the notion that heavy vegetation adds value is not … borne out in (his) experience”,28 and that in his view when comparing land without vegetation and land with significant vegetation, “the market prefers the cleared land.”29 [61] Mr Kamitsis said he did not draw much utility from vacant sales. He said that vacant sales are more relevant to a summation approach. He did not consider Sale 2 directly comparable. In response to a question from senior counsel for the applicant, Mr Kamitsis said: “I’m entirely comfortable in comparing Sale 2, even though I’m not 27 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 57. 28 T 1-39, lines 37 to 38. 29 T 1-40, lines 1 to 2. -- 15 of 35 -- 16 doing the summation method. It fits entirely with my views that if that sale is $5 million, how on earth is the … subject property, in Mr Rex’s opinion, $7.6 million”.30 [62] The applicant says that the valuation of the subject Land using both the summation method (discussed later in these reasons) and the direct comparison method is $11,250,000. [63] For the purposes of the summation method, the applicant says the added value of improvements on the subject Land is $3,600,000. Accordingly, the applicant’s valuation of the subject Land in a vacant state at the time of the acquisition is $7,650,000. [64] Sale 2 was transacted in April 2023 for $5,000,000. Mr Rex’s evidence would suggest that the difference in value between the subject Land in a vacant state ($7,650,000) and Sale 2 ($5,000,000), being around 50%, is due to Sale 2’s inferior rural amenity, its status as a “different type of lifestyle property”, and the lesser quality of the view corridor. But Mr Rex also says that Sale 2 is in an area that is “extremely popular”, and (Sale 2) is comparable in terms of land usability, community facilities and community access. [65] It is not clearly explained by Mr Rex how the distinguishing factors he considered important render Sale 2 inferior to the subject Land (in a vacant state) by (over) $2,500,000 or roughly 50%. [66] Sale 7 on North Maleny Road, a 46.48 ha property, sold in November 2023 for $7,735,000. It is a minimally improved property and according to Mr Rex it “demonstrates the land value.”31 Mr Rex said he considered that this Sale established a land value around $7,500,000 ($7,485,000),32 and accordingly a valuation of the subject Land (unimproved) of $7,650,000 because he considered the subject Land a better property. The summation method is discussed in more detail later in these reasons. [67] Neither Sale 2 nor Sale 7 is helpful in applying the direct comparison method. 30 T 1-35, lines 8 to 10. 31 T 1-110, lines 41 to 42. 32 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 71. -- 16 of 35 -- 17 Sale 10 [68] Sale 10 at Cooroy Mountain in the Noosa LGA sold in “an inferior market” in 2021 for $9,500,000. The land area is similar in size and is currently used for cattle breeding and fattening. Access via Cooroy Mountain Road is part bitumen, part gravel. The property includes a 2019 award winning executive residence, a caretaker’s cottage, three machinery sheds and stock yards. The property has a pool, tennis court, a 11 car garage, 3 bores, 7 dams and 416K litre rainwater tanks. [69] Mr Rex considered Sale 10 as inferior to the subject Land but “provides a guide to market value”. He considered the location inferior to the subject Land; gravel access to be a deterrent; the views inferior; and the structural improvements to be comparable although the Sale 10 residence to be superior. [70] Mr Kamitsis said Sale 10 is elevated with good rural view corridors and that the improvements were “vastly superior in every respect”. He said it was a vastly superior property overall. He did not consider gravel road access to necessarily be a deterrent. [71] In closing written submissions, the respondent says: “Despite the self-evident superiority of the improvements on sale 10, Mr Rex would not answer whether they were ‘better or worse’ than the subject’s improvements, but instead insisted they were ‘comparable’. That opinion is implausible (insofar as it suggests that the improvements are alike or not materially different in terms of value). It should not be accepted.”33 (citations omitted) [72] In my view, particularly by reference to paragraph [68] above, this assessment is fair. [73] I agree with the respondent that based on the material before the Court, Sale 10 is a vastly superior property overall. Sales 8 and 11 [74] Mr Rex considered Sale 8 at North Maleny Road and Sale 11 at Lake Macdonald to be the “best guide to market value”.34 Both Sales occurred within a month of the resumption. [75] Sale 8 on North Maleny Road, a 38.87 ha property, sold in November 2023 for $8,580,000. The property has an easterly aspect with some distant ocean views. The 33 Ex 16, Respondent’s Closing Submissions, para 32. 34 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 43, para 11.21. -- 17 of 35 -- 18 land is mostly clear of vegetation and has been used for cattle breeding and fattening. A powerline easement (“T pole”) dissects the property in a north south direction – which Mr Rex describes as an impediment. In cross examination he said the impediment is “an easement on a title deed, which takes some explaining for certain buyers.”35 The easement is approximately 300 m from the house. [76] Mr Rex said in evidence that there was comparability (with the subject Land) with respect to how a “rural lifestyle party” would view it, and that there is comparability in terms of the “land usability” and “in the overall structural improvements”, and the “total package of improvements … with respect to the property”.36 [77] Mr Rex says the improvements at Sale 8 “are somewhat dated”; “they’ve been done up”; “they were built in a different era”; “they’ve been renovated”. In cross examination in response to the statement that the Sale 8 residence is superior, Mr Rex conceded “the house might be, yes”.37 [78] It was put to Mr Rex that the Maleny locality is superior to the subject. Mr Rex said he “definitely do[es] not agree … with that point”.38 He agreed that Sale 8 had good views. [79] Mr Kamitsis said that in his opinion Maleny is a superior area to Maroochy River, and the improvements to this property superior. Every bedroom has an ensuite, the house is 483 m2 compared to the subject at 285 m2. [80] The material in the JER and the video sales material provided on USB by the respondent39 suggest that while the construction date of the improvements (specifically the residence) on Sale 8 might pre-date the construction date of the residence on the subject Land, the residence on Sale 8 is superior in terms of size, design, comfort, and materials. Mr Rex’s opinion shifted from the JER which suggested them to be inferior, to evidence at the hearing where he accepted that the house might be superior. [81] In my view, based on the evidence, it is clearly superior. 35 T 1-68, lines 26 to 27. 36 T 1-66, lines 10 to 15. 37 T 1-67, line 30. 38 T 1-67, line 46. 39 Ex 15. -- 18 of 35 -- 19 [82] Sale 11, sold in November 2023 for $10,200,000, is less than half the size of the subject Land, and is impacted by a 900 m gravel access road which (access) is subject to periodic flooding. The property has a substantial residence (circa 500 m2), a guest cottage, equestrian facilities and stables, and a “25 metre built in pool area”. It enjoys a direct outlook over Lake Macdonald. It is close to Cooroy township, but Mr Rex says it is “far removed” from airports and beaches.40 [83] I would note that none of the properties considered by the valuers are “close” to beaches, and any of the properties which enjoy a coastal view are distant rather than proximate. [84] In the JER, Mr Rex considered the structural improvements to be comparable but the “land usability” (of Sale 11) superior. [85] Mr Kamitsis considered Sale 11 a vastly superior property overall. It is a superior site due to lake views and position, with a larger primary residence (double the size of the residence on the subject Land) with superior fixtures and fittings. The evidence in the JER and photographs support that conclusion. Mr Kamitsis said that he could not draw a meaningful comparison between the subject Land and Sale 11 because of the magnitude of difference in the improvements. [86] In his sales analysis in the JER,41 Mr Rex quantified the added value of residential improvements at $3,200,000 and the added value of ancillary improvements at $350,000, totalling $3,550,000, or a little less than the $3,600,000 “added value of improvements” to the subject Land he adopts in his summation method assessment. He considered the Sale 11 land value to be $6,650,000 or approximately $350K/ha. [87] In cross examination Mr Rex accepted that the main residence at Sale 11 was superior, “and for other things” he said “it’s gotta be superior”.42 In the JER he says, “the rural outlook and road accessibility” (of Sale 11) are inferior. Asked whether buyers pay a premium for a lake view Mr Rex said that “… people do pay a – a premium for a lake view as well, but I think they prefer a coastal view over a – over a lake view.”43 There was no evidence to prove or disprove this statement. Mr Rex also said in evidence “… 40 T 1-85, line 4. 41 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 85. 42 T 1-87, lines 23 to 28. 43 T 1-91, lines 46 to 47. -- 19 of 35 -- 20 there’s two types of issues with the lakefront holding. You either want one or you don’t want one.”44 [88] In my view, Sale 11 is vastly superior to the subject Land. The key differences drawn by Mr Rex are a lake view as opposed to a mountain and distant coastal view, a smaller area of land, and proximity to the airport and beaches. Valuation – direct comparison [89] The evidence indicates that the subject Land is valued more than Sale 1 ($4,000,000) and Sale 3 ($5,250,000). [90] Mr Kamitsis considers it to be valued less than Sale 5 ($6,150,000). [91] As noted earlier, Mr Kamitsis reduced his initial valuation of $6,000,000 to $5,800,000 after “he gained a better understanding of the flood risk”.45 That amount, $5,800,000, is roughly a midpoint between Sale 3 and Sale 5. [92] There is no clear statement to explain how Mr Rex determined his valuation of $11,250,000 based on the 12 Sales. [93] He has placed his valuation of the subject Land between the 2 highest Sales (Sale 11 and Sale 12). As noted at [74], Mr Rex considered Sale 8 ($8,580,000) and 11 ($10,200,000) to be the “best guide” to value. Having heard the evidence and considered all the material, I am satisfied that, despite the powerline easement, Sale 8 is superior, and Sale 11 vastly superior to the subject Land. [94] Mr Rex does not rely on Sale 5 but suggested it (Sale 5) was comparable although further from the beach and airport. [95] Mr Rex made some concessions during evidence – particularly about the standard and quality of improvements to certain Sales. No adjustment to his sales analysis or comparability tables was made following those concessions. [96] For example, in the JER Mr Rex estimated the value of residential and ancillary improvements on Sale 11 to be a little less than the improvements on the subject Land. In evidence Mr Rex conceded that Sale 11 was superior. The evidence clearly shows the Sale 11 residence and facilities to be superior. 44 T 1-85, lines 15 to 16. 45 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 51, paras 12.24-12.26. -- 20 of 35 -- 21 [97] In the JER, Mr Rex was of the view that there was comparability in terms of the “total package of improvements” as between Sale 8 and the subject Land. Mr Rex accepted in evidence that the residence on Sale 8 “might be” superior.46 [98] In the JER, Mr Rex valued the combined residential and ancillary improvements on Sale 8 above that of the subject Land, but considered the property inferior “mainly for location and rural amenity issues”.47 [99] Although Mr Rex did not concede it to be, I have accepted that Sale 10 ($9,500,000) is vastly superior to the subject Land. On that basis, and due to that Sale occurring in an inferior market, it does not assist the process of determining compensation. [100] Sales 4, 6, 9 and 12 are not helpful in determining the valuation of the subject Land. [101] Sale 2 ($5,000,000), a vacant land sale, is only possibly relevant to the application of the summation method – however, the applicant’s evidence was unsatisfactory to explain how and why the subject Land would be valued $2,650,000 or approximately 50% higher than Sale 2 on an unimproved basis. [102] In my view the most relevant Sales in determining the value of the subject Land are Sale 3, 5 and 8. [103] The key issue relevant to any comparison between the Sales and the subject Land is location. Location, location, location [104] The relevance of location to the valuation was a matter of disagreement material to the expert valuers’ conclusions. The expert valuers did not state in the JER how their conclusions would differ if the Court resolved the disagreement against their view on that matter.48 [105] Mr Rex in the JER at paragraphs 11.12-11.28 comments on the 9 Sales relevant to his conclusion, based on his 6-factor inferior/superior weight classification – some of which were “moderated” during the hearing. However, exactly how this leads to a valuation of $11,250,000 is not easily discerned. 46 See [76]-[77]. 47 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 74. 48 Land Court of Queensland, Practice Direction No 6 of 2020: Expert evidence in the Land Court, 6 April 2022, para 34. -- 21 of 35 -- 22 [106] Mr Kamitsis in the JER at paragraphs 12.5-12.26 goes through a similar exercise but says at paragraph 12.23 “… by reference to improved sales 1 and sale 3, he considers the market value of the subject property to be above $5,250,000 but below Sale 5 at $6,150,000.” He concludes that at the relevant date the market value of the subject Land is $5,800,000 (after he gained a better understanding of the flood risk to access). [107] At page 55 of the JER Mr Kamitsis says: “Maroochy River is a lower order location relative the Maleny/Mapleton Hinterland area in respect of prestige rural lifestyle living. Whilst the suburb of Maroochy River is more convenient to amenities and has the conservation park, it has fewer prestige quality homes, is at risk of flooding and for these reasons, not held in the same esteem.”49 [108] The applicant says that Mr Kamitsis’ view that Maroochy River is less desirable than the Maleny or Noosa market is just a subjective view. In cross examination Mr Kamitsis was asked to point to evidence to prove it. [109] Mr Kamitsis pointed to the Sales Summary Table50 which shows the best Sales the valuers could point to. Four are in the Lake Macdonald and Cooroy area. Five are in the Maleny hinterland area. Outside those nine are three Sales that have little relevance. He said there is no evidence of prestige sales in Maroochy River. Mr Kamitsis agreed that that could be due to scarcity. [110] It was put to Mr Kamitsis in cross examination that it is wrong to assert that pointing to sales in Lake Macdonald and Maleny is proof of the inferiority of the subject Land. [111] Mr Kamitsis disagreed. He said that he had never known the Maroochy River area to be spoken about as being equivalent to the Maleny/Mapleton hinterland, which attracts international attention. He said that of the subject Land and the Sales, the most populated area is Maroochy River. However, the only Maroochy River sale considered by the valuers was the vacant Sale 4, which Mr Rex considered far inferior, and Mr Kamitsis concluded was not a comparable property. [112] The point Mr Kamitsis appears to be making was that despite a larger number of properties in the Maroochy River area, when compared to the Maleny area, seemingly none that might be classified as “rural lifestyle” or “prestige” or which might be in 49 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, page 55. 50 Ibid page 36. -- 22 of 35 -- 23 any way comparable to the subject Land were transacted between 2021 and 2023. It is unknown if any went to market during that period. [113] Mr Rex commented that “our property, from a rural lifestyle perspective, would be the highest property that you can get a view corridor from in Maroochy River.”51 The subject Land in Mr Rex’s view benefitted from adjoining the Parklands Conservation Park. [114] Mr Rex said that the Conservation Park is well renowned in the mountain bike community, and probably the most popular north of Brisbane. He said that he rides his bike up there probably once a month.52 He said that: “if you went out there on [a] Saturday or Sunday in good weather, you’d probably have two or three hundred cars there. It’s pretty packed early in the morning. Um – it has got a variety of trails from beginners to quite senior people.”53 There is no car park. [115] In the JER at page 38, paragraph 11.4, Mr Rex writes that there are four prominent public access mountain bike circuits established within the Park. Figure 5 at page 39 of the JER is a map of the circuits and the adjacent subject Land. The Lemon Tree circuit, and perhaps the Komine circuit, appear to follow the boundary of the subject Land. In evidence Mr Kamitsis said that he observed a track that was very near to the house and shed, and a “private property” sign (on the subject Land), but no fencing between the subject Land and the Park. [116] Mr Rex did not believe that the use of the Park by the BMX community would affect the use and enjoyment of the subject Land. Although familiar with the Park and its use, Mr Rex was unaware of any track “against the boundary of the house.” He added that “… I would admit that from time to time, people would come through.”54 [117] Mr Rex argued most strongly that the views enjoyed by the subject Land and the amenity of Maroochy River to services and transport, were a significant driver of value. He said that a Maroochy River buyer has closer proximity to practical urban amenities such as healthcare, rail transport, bus transport, beaches, commercial 51 T 1-28, lines 18 to 20. 52 T 1-103, line 23. 53 T 1-103, lines 38 to 40. 54 T 1-104, lines 9 to 11. -- 23 of 35 -- 24 villages, private schools, the Bruce Highway, and the airport, in comparison to Maleny.55 [118] When asked whether the Maleny/Bald Knob buyer and the Maroochy River purchaser were in the same market, Mr Rex said they are distinct markets. Maleny is a “older style demographic” with a quicker “turnover” of properties (that is, buyers hold properties for a shorter period than a “younger” demographic). [119] It might be that the “older” demographic might have less need for access to some services, for example childcare, schools and access to beaches, and access to the Bruce Highway and the airport for business, but more need for others, for example, cafés and medical services. [120] When asked if the Maleny market was considered a more “luxury” market than the Maroochy River market, Mr Rex said that it used to be, but since COVID “… I think the market’s changed dramatically because of ease of access”.56 [121] However, there was no evidence in the prestige or luxury market in Maroochy River to support this opinion. There were no Maroochy River prestige sales considered by the valuers in the period of 2021 to 2023. [122] In response to the same question concerning the prestige or luxury market, Mr Kamitsis said that he agreed that proximity to urban amenities is relevant, however “it doesn’t translate into value”. He cited Noosa as an example of where “location trumps amenity”. [123] There was evidence of prestige or luxury property transactions between 2021 and 2023 in the Maleny/Montville region. [124] The subject Land is a prestige property. However, there is no evidence to confirm that a willing buyer would pay more for a prestige property in Maroochy River than they would for the same quality prestige property in the Maleny/Montville region. The subject Land enjoys outstanding views, significant improvements and a quality residence, but it is in a lower order location, and is a lower quality prestige property when compared, for example, to Sale 8, Sale 9 and Sale 11. 55 T 1-70, lines 21 to 28. 56 T 1-72, lines 36 to 37. -- 24 of 35 -- 25 [125] I accept the rural amenity, community facilities and community access that Sale 5 enjoys, which render it the most comparable sale. Sale 5 does not suffer flood impacts. The Sale 5 residence is more modern. It is a better rural lifestyle property. The adverse impact of the easements on Sale 5 might be of similar impact in terms of valuation as the flood impacts which affect the subject Land. I accept that the direct comparison method was correctly applied by Mr Kamitsis. I determine the compensation payable for the taking of the subject Land is $5,800,000. The summation method [126] I am satisfied that the direct comparison method has been applied in this case to produce the correct compensation amount, being $5,800,000. In those circumstances it is unnecessary to consider the summation method as a “check method”. I will however make some observations. [127] In applying the summation “check” method to the subject Land, Mr Rex attributes $7,650,000 to the land component, and $3,600,000 to the added value of improvements. The summation method as applied by Mr Rex confirmed Mr Rex’s direct comparison valuation. [128] At paragraph 11.29 of the JER he said he relied on the RLB Replacement Cost Assessment Report “to guide his understanding” of the added value of improvements. In the RLB report is a table which lists improvements and the depreciated value of each.57 The total determined in the report is $3,733,434. [129] In evidence Mr Rex explained that he took that figure and “rounded it down” to $3,600,000 (having mistakenly said that he had “rounded it up” to $3,600,000). When asked by senior counsel for the applicant what was his thinking in rounding it down, he said: “there was no real thinking”58 and that it was just a number he was comfortable with. Some time was spent in evidence understanding this process. No mention was made by Mr Rex of any independent assessment or calculation he had undertaken. [130] However, in evidence the following hearing day, in cross examination, Mr Rex said (of the $3.6 million) “it’s my number, and then I just adopted my number. He [RLB] 57 Ex 1, document 12, Statement of Nicholas Luke Duncan, Quantity Surveyor, para 90. 58 T 1-108, line 31. -- 25 of 35 -- 26 was very close to my number. He was within 10 per cent of my number, so I just adopted my number …”59 [131] When it was put to Mr Rex that that was not what he said in evidence earlier, he said “that’s what I should have said. But maybe I got confused.” [132] Some effort was also made at the hearing to understand the basis of Mr Rex’s decision to value the subject land component at $7,650,000 in his application of the summation method. He said that the key Sales were 7 and 8. [133] Mr Rex assessed the land component of Sale 7 to be $7,485,000. [134] He assessed the land component of Sale 8 to be $4,850,000.60 [135] Despite Mr Rex saying that Sale 8 was a “key sale” in the application of the summation method, it is not apparent how that was the case. The land value adopted for the subject Land ($7,650,000) is $2,800,000 above the assessed land (only) component of Sale 8. [136] Mr Kamitsis expressed concern about the summation method, in particular the use of Quantity Surveyor data regarding the depreciated value of improvements. He says the “market” relevant to the subject Land is the “prestige market”. He says, for example that the large shed on the subject Land is 620 m2 and the depreciated value in the RLB report is $969,920. He says that almost all the improved Sales the valuers considered have sheds – and that a shed half the size of the shed on the subject Land “would still be more than adequate for most buyers”,61 to make the point that the depreciated value does not necessarily equal added value. [137] I am satisfied that the compensation that ought to be paid to the applicant for the taking of the subject Land has been correctly determined through the application of the direct comparison method. The summation method does not assist in confirming the valuation of the subject Land. 59 T 2-4, lines 13 to 15. 60 Ex 1, document 13, Joint Expert Report of the Valuation Experts, pages 71, 74. 61 T 1-102, lines 23 to 24. -- 26 of 35 -- 27 The “special value in reverse” approach [138] Presented as a “further check approach”, in written closing submissions the applicant says it does not suggest that the special value method ought to be used as the primary method of valuation in this case. [139] The respondent says that the “special value in reverse” is not an approach known to the law and is contrary to fundamental and binding principles. [140] I am satisfied that the compensation that ought to be paid to the applicant for the taking of the subject Land has been correctly determined through the application of the direct comparison method. The applicant’s “special value in reverse” submission does not assist in confirming the valuation of the subject Land. Costs attributable to disturbance [141] I adopt paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the applicant’s Supplementary Submissions on Disturbance filed 10 November 2025: “5. The proper approach to the assessment of compensation to be awarded for costs attributable to disturbance under section 20(5) of the ALA, and the authorities relevant to that approach, was recently considered by Member Loos in Robke & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads; Robke & Anor v Mackay Sugar Ltd where his Honour observed at [20] (footnotes omitted): ‘Both section 20(5) of the ALA and section 68(5) of the SIA involve an assessment of reasonableness, when considering whether costs are attributable to disturbance. The test of what is reasonable has been discussed by the Land Appeal Court in Heavey Lex, Nevis Pty Ltd v Chief Executive, Department of Main Roads and Inglis & Ors v State of Queensland (No. 2); State of Queensland v Inglis & Ors. The principles in making such as assessment are: (a) losses must be of a nature and within the scope of those which a reasonable person in the position of the claimant would have done or caused to be done; (b) the amount or quantum of the losses must be reasonable in the circumstances; (c) the losses must be actually incurred and quantifiable; and, -- 27 of 35 -- 28 (d) they must not be losses which a reasonable person would have avoided.’ 6. His Honour referred to the decision of the Land Appeal Court in Heavey Lex No 64 Pty Ltd & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport, where the Court observed at [74]: ‘In our view, the authorities support the proposition that outgoings in respect of the preparation of a compensation claim to be recoverable must be reasonable. What is reasonable needs to be determined … by application of an objective standard or standards. In our view a claimant can recover for work of a nature and within the scope of that which a reasonable person in the position of the claimant would have done or caused to be done. The fees and charges for the work must also be reasonable.’ 7. The complexity of a claim is relevant to the costs incurred in order to prepare it. In Inglis v State of Queensland, the Land Appeal Court observed at [120]: ‘The claim plainly had its complexities. So much is apparent from the nature of the case advanced in the Land Court. … In such a case, it was open to the learned Member to find that it was reasonable to incur costs for the preparation of reports, particularly in light of the size of the claim, and the real prospect that it would be litigated.’”62 (citations omitted) [142] The passage from Heavey Lex No 64 Pty Ltd & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport (2001) 22 QLCR 177 at [88] is also relevant: “We do not suggest that a tribunal, in the position of the member, must resolve its task by precise mathematical analysis. To a degree, members of the Land Court are appointed by virtue of their specialist skill or experience. That skill and experience may be used in the making of value judgments involving the process of estimation and impression. That, however, does not relieve Land Court members from the obligation of showing a basis of reasoning sufficient to indicate why one sum is selected in respect of a head of disturbance rather than another.”63 [143] As the assessment of stamp duty is determined through the application of a formula based on land value, I do not provide a figure. 62 Applicant’s Supplementary Submissions on Disturbance filed 10 November 2025 [5]-[7]. 63 Heavey Lex No 64 Pty Ltd & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport (2001) 22 QLCR 177 [88]; [2001] QLAC 4. -- 28 of 35 -- 29 [144] The disputed items are set out in the following table. Item claimed by applicant Disputed amount ($) Legal costs (s 20(5)(a) ALA) $85,000 Valuation or other professional fees (s 20(5)(a) ALA) $24,968.18 Removal and storage costs (s 20(5)(c) ALA) $33,037.38 Financial costs (s 20(5)(b)(ii) ALA) $1,124.32 Total (excluding stamp duty) $144,129.88 Legal costs [145] The challenge to many of the disputed items is the fact that they were costs incurred before the NIR was issued. The applicant says in submissions that the compensation proceedings “somewhat overlapped” judicial review proceedings in the Supreme Court, whereby the applicant challenged the validity of the resumption. [146] The applicant refers to Robke & Anor v Chief Executive, Department of Transport and Main Roads; Robke & Anor v Mackay Sugar Ltd [2025] QLC 3 at [160] where Member Loos, having noted the relatively modest amount claimed, determined that a solicitor engaged prior to the NIR to help the affected party “understand what was about to unfold”, was a reasonable step to take. However, costs incurred in challenging the issue of the NIR were costs of endeavouring to stop the resumption, rather than preparing the claim. [147] The applicant’s disturbance claim for legal costs in this matter was $195,978.64 There are three categories of costs: costs relating to the applicant’s objection to the NIR in the amount of $64,720.50, which are no longer claimed; costs relating to a Right to Information (RTI) request totalling $17,619.50, which are no longer claimed; and $113,638 which the applicant says otherwise is claimable. [148] The applicant’s Table of Legal Invoices is exhibit PJB-2 to the 10 November 2025 affidavit of Mr Bittner. The table refers to 19 invoices and breaks down the amount 64 In the applicant’s Statement of Facts and Issues, $165,351.56 for legal costs was claimed. As explained in the affidavit of Peter John Bittner filed 10 November 2025, the applicant’s disturbance claim for legal costs was actually $195,978. -- 29 of 35 -- 30 billed on each invoice as: “not claimed …”; “RTI items”; and “other claimed matters”. The “other claimed matters” column totals $113,638. [149] Notwithstanding, that amount ($113,638) is not claimed. Instead the lower sum of $85,000 is claimed by the applicant as a reasonable figure given the complexity of the claim. The applicant has “struck through” items on the invoices no longer claimed. [150] The respondent agrees to only $20,000. Invoices 1-15 they “disallow” entirely. Invoices 17-19 they agree on a limited basis. [151] The respondent says that work performed on dates before the NIR was issued is outside the scope of section 20(5) of the ALA and not claimable: “… because work done before even an intention to resume has been announced is premature and not reasonably incurred (particularly in the absence of any cogent evidence demonstrating otherwise)”.65 [152] The respondent also says that work not related to the preparation of the claim is not claimable. They note that some costs relating to a RTI request and to Supreme Court proceedings, which do not relate to a claim for compensation, continue to be sought. [153] I have reviewed each invoice. The information on each invoice is limited to: the name of the responsible Partner; the date/s work was performed; the “narrative” (a brief statement of the work performed); the initials of the person who performed the work; the hours/rate; and the total amount. [154] The invoices were issued to GS Clark Enterprises Pty Ltd; Clark Group; or Mac West from Clark Group. While I could not see any attendances on Mr Clark in the narration/s, it would appear that Mac West, Clark Group, may have been Mr Clark’s representative in relation to the RTI application, Supreme Court proceedings and the resumption. [155] Invoices 1 to 4 inclusive are for work which pre-dates the NIR. The narrations include phrases such as “negotiations with Council”, “valuation and strategy”, “attend on valuation report”, and “resumption and position of Council”; they represent a claim beyond what was accepted in Robke as, in my words, a modest amount “to help understand what was about to unfold” and are not claimable. 65 Respondent’s Amended Written Submissions as to Disturbance Items filed 21 November 2025 [11(a)]. -- 30 of 35 -- 31 [156] Invoice 5 includes fees for work performed both before and after the NIR was issued. They include, for example, fees for a detailed review of the NIR and all supporting material referred to therein. The respondent says: “none of the items claimed … are reasonably related to providing advice about the NIR or preparation of the claim.” That is not entirely correct. I would allow a small amount, $200. [157] Invoice 6 also includes fees for work both before and after the NIR was issued. There is difficulty in discerning what entries concern objecting/objection to the NIR, and what entries concern the claim. The respondent says that $2,479.50 represent fees for pre-NIR work, and for the rest the items are not related to the preparation of the claim. The narrations are not particularly helpful. Some are quite broad, for example, “to advise client in relation to the proposed resumption”, could relate to the claim. I do not allow this claim. [158] Invoice 7 includes entries such as “attendance on email to client re Sunshine Coast Council Olympic Bid Mountain Bike Course Site Review and progression of matter” and again, uncertain activities such as “matter strategy” and “next steps”. Others are more clearly not claimable such as “drafting letter to Clayton Utz re proposed objector conference date”. The respondent says none of the items claimed appear reasonably related to the preparation of the claim. I do not allow this claim. [159] The covering letter accompanying Invoice 8 lists the RTI application, the objection to the NIR, an objection hearing conference, and attendances concerning the NIR and RTI application. The only item that might be claimable concerns the “review of further background documents provided by the Council in relation to the NIR” – however, the narration does not assist in determining the amount claimed nor to be satisfied it was in fact claimable. I do not allow this claim. [160] In relation to Invoices 9 and 10, I agree with the respondent that none of the items still claimed in these invoices appear reasonably related to the preparation of the claim. [161] The respondent notes that Invoice 11 references in its heading “Judicial Review Application” which would appear to provide context for the narrations which refer to “strategy”. I am unable to identify items which might relate to the claim. [162] Invoices 12 and 13 are for “Law Image Services” – however it is not apparent what service/s were provided. The respondent believes they are related to the judicial review proceedings. I do not allow this claim. -- 31 of 35 -- 32 [163] Invoice 14 concerns junior counsel fees in the amount of $300: “Considering valuation methodology ... considering case law of special value cases” etc. The respondent notes that the invoice says it is in relation to: Clark v SCRC and Minister for Resources and Critical Minerals, Supreme Court. Despite this, I do not think this claim is unreasonable. [164] Invoice 15 concerns the fees of senior counsel between 4 February 2024 and 18 March 2024. A number of items have been “struck through” as not being claimed. The respondent says that the entries appear to relate to the judicial review proceedings and are not necessary or related to the preparation of the claim. [165] There are persons named as participants in “conferences” who did not participate in the compensation hearing, and with whom I am unfamiliar. If those persons were assisting in relation to the judicial review proceedings or the RTI application, but not compensation, then the claim rightfully should be disallowed. I do not have sufficient information to allow those claims. I do consider that a site inspection in relation to the claim for compensation is reasonable. That entry does refer to a site inspection of the subject Land, and “sales” at Cooroy, Lake Macdonald and North Maleny. All clearly feature in the compensation hearing. I would allow $10,000 in respect of this claim. [166] The applicant seeks $13,508 in relation to Invoice 16. Again, the narrations appear to merge purposes, for example two billings on 6 March 2024 attended by valuer Mr Rex and Mac West concerned “compensation valuation, next steps, mediation and judicial review applications”. Other entries include: emails and calls “regarding instructions not to file application against decision of the Minister”; or are difficult to discern, for example: “preparing for site inspection and preparing note to Mac West on disturbance items”. On the other hand, fees concerning site inspection and comparable sale sites are more likely to be compensable. Matters concerning the sending of draft compensation forms are certainly recoverable. The respondent says $3,000, or approximately 25% of the claim could be allowed. I would allow an amount closer to 50%, specifically $7,000. [167] The respondent would allow $8,800 (about 75%) of the $10,177.50 claimed in respect of Invoice 17. They say that some items are not necessary for the preparation of the claim, including review and amendments of the draft Quantity Surveyor report, and consider some of the work detailed and the amount claimed excessive and unreasonable. I would allow most of the amount claimed on this invoice, $10,000. -- 32 of 35 -- 33 [168] Similar comments are made by the respondent concerning Invoice 18. The respondent would allow $2,000 (about 20%) of the $10,602 claim, on the basis that some entries include items not related to the preparation of the claim or are not reasonable. I agree that the narration does not provide sufficient information to appreciate the relevance of some items claimed. I would allow around 50%, specifically $5,000 in relation to this invoice. [169] In relation to Invoice 19, there are claims unrelated to the preparation of the claim including without prejudice negotiation and mediation. The respondent says $3,000 could be allowed. I think that is fair and reasonable. [170] In relation to “legal” disturbance costs I allow $35,500. Valuation costs or other professional fees [171] The applicant says it claims only the invoices that are relevant to the valuation prepared to support the applicant’s claim for compensation in the sum of $24,968.18. [172] The breakdown is: $318.18 for real estate photography; $12,400 for the Quantity Surveyor expert report “relevant to the work performed by Mr Rex”; and $12,250 for Mr Rex’s work. [173] The respondent “disallows” the claim for photography because it is not necessary or reasonable to engage a professional photographer. I do not consider this aspect of the claim unreasonable. Photographic evidence is necessary, and useful to the Court. The cost is modest. [174] The respondent “disallows” the claim for $12,400 for the Quantity Surveyor saying it is not reasonably necessary for the preparation of the claim, and that it is unorthodox to engage a Quantity Surveyor to prepare a report “in relation to a property of this nature”. I presume this means, as opposed to perhaps a valuation matter regarding a commercial property with, for example, challenging topography. [175] The Quantity Surveyor report was in the material before the Court, although the Quantity Surveyor did not give evidence. The report was referred to, in relation to estimates of the value of improvements. Mr Rex said in evidence that the calculation performed by the Quantity Surveyor were similar to his own – which does question its value. The respondent also refers to the Australian Property Institute’s Valuation -- 33 of 35 -- 34 Protocol66 which “does not suggest it is appropriate”. I would allow $4,000 for this item. [176] The amount claimed in respect of the valuation ($12,250) is a reduction on the claimed amount of $14,250 to account for Mr Rex’s attending a without prejudice meeting. The respondent says that on the basis that the valuation fees incurred before the NIR was issued are not claimable, this claim should be allowed, that is, $12,250. [177] Accordingly, the valuation or other professional fees disturbance costs allowed is $16,568.18. Removal and storage costs [178] The applicant claims $25,486.29 for the leasing of storage sheds for 3 months to temporarily store items until a permanent location could be found. The invoices appear at pages 300-305, volume 2 of the hearing bundle.67 However, the invoices at pages 300-305 total only $19,163.01 (incl. GST) or $17,420.91 (excl. GST). [179] The applicant also claims insurance costs for the items stored of $7,551.09. [180] The amount previously agreed regarding the payment of other storage costs is in the amount of $17,151.75. [181] The respondent says that the claim for insurance costs should be disallowed as they were not reasonably incurred in relocating from the land taken because the applicant could have purchased a replacement property to store his possessions, and that reasonable time was afforded to vacate the land within which he could have relocated his possessions. [182] Rather than determine one figure or the other, I allow $20,000 as removal and storage disturbance costs. Financial costs [183] In the affidavit of Mr Bittner filed 10 November 2025 at [16] he says: “I am informed by the Applicant that he was required to pay the sum of $1,124.32 to the National Australia Bank Limited to discharge a mortgage that was registered over the subject land at the time it was resumed.” 66 Ex 12, API Valuation Protocol. 67 Ex 1, document 15, Applicant’s Invoices. -- 34 of 35 -- 35 [184] The respondent says that as the mortgage was discharged pursuant to section 12(5) of the ALA, the mortgagee discharge fee should not apply. The respondent says that there is no documentary evidence showing actual payment. That is something that Mr Bittner can confirm, and subject to confirmation ought to be paid. Compensation [185] I determine compensation for the taking of the subject Land as follows: Item claimed Amount ($) Compensation payable for the taking of the subject Land (s 20(2) ALA) $5,800,000 Disturbance [186] I determine compensation for disturbance costs as follows: Item claimed Amount ($) Legal costs (s 20(5)(a) ALA) $35,500 Valuation or other professional fees (s 20(5)(a) ALA) $16,568.18 Removal and storage costs (s 20(5)(c) ALA) $20,000 Financial costs (s 20(5)(b)(ii) ALA) $1,124.32 Total $73,192.50 Stamp duty [187] As noted earlier in these reasons the proper amount of stamp duty will be based on the value of the Land taken. Orders 1. Compensation for the taking of the subject Land is determined in the sum of Five Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($5,800,000), less advances paid. 2. Compensation for disturbance costs is determined in the sum of Seventy-Three Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety-Two Dollars and Fifty Cents ($73,192.50). 3. The stamp duty payable is to be determined based on the award of compensation for the taking of the subject Land. 4. The parties will be heard in relation to any application for costs. A request for such a hearing must be made on or before 28 January 2026. -- 35 of 35 --